Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour

[BuckeyeNut]

The LPGA has to demonstrate that there's a justification for more sponsor money, and the sponsors have to put up more money to attract more players so that there's a justification.

And I see something else with kids. What I see goes to piano competitions and stuff like that with the next big thing being the cute 12 year old being trotted out to perform the Rachmaninoff 3rd piano Concerto. You do realize how much practice time it takes to master the instrument to the level to perform it, right? The child has no life from the age of 5 through their teens. Practice is a solitary endeavor outside of school where they also have maintain straight As. It's like spending hours upon hours hitting balls.

So while it's fine for a kid to play golf and be good enough to play in events, perhaps they should also be able to be a kid, too. Some parents have a tendency to live out their own dreams through their kids, and the kid of 11 or 12 has no say in the matter.

I agree with this assessment.

A scratch golfer wouldn't have a chance...........   High HC golfers can't comprehend how wide the gap is from carrying a zero HC..............all the way to professional golf.

[BuckeyeNut]

Scores like these won't earn a CENT on the LPGA tour.............and don't kid yourself thinking that by moving 1 set of tees closer will make a big difference, because it wont.

This is my GHIN screen from when I got to a 0.

A Zero HC isn't even good enough to be competitive on the Big Break golf show!!    High HC golfers are misguided in their perceptions of what it means to be a zero HC.

[newtogolf]

The LPGA has to demonstrate that there's a justification for more sponsor money, and the sponsors have to put up more money to attract more players so that there's a justification.

And I see something else with kids. What I see goes to piano competitions and stuff like that with the next big thing being the cute 12 year old being trotted out to perform the Rachmaninoff 3rd piano Concerto. You do realize how much practice time it takes to master the instrument to the level to perform it, right? The child has no life from the age of 5 through their teens. Practice is a solitary endeavor outside of school where they also have maintain straight As. It's like spending hours upon hours hitting balls.

So while it's fine for a kid to play golf and be good enough to play in events, perhaps they should also be able to be a kid, too. Some parents have a tendency to live out their own dreams through their kids, and the kid of 11 or 12 has no say in the matter.

I agree kids should be kids and parents should not live their dreams out through their kids, but it's a much more competitive world than it used to be.  If you want to reach the top levels of any vocation you have to put in the time and effort, that along with natural ability, is what separates the best from the rest of the pack.

[iacas]

Scores like these won't earn a CENT on the LPGA tour.............and don't kid yourself thinking that by moving 1 set of tees closer will make a big difference, because it wont.

Their course ratings and slopes aren't 75.1/141 (not that slope matters much to a scratch golfer).

The course they play in Toledo is about a 71.1/132 course. They don't grow the rough, extend the tees, etc. Take four strokes off each of those scores and you could have made the cut, which would earn you at least 256,600 cents.

Maybe your game didn't travel. Maybe you sucked under pressure. Maybe you're putting a little too much stock in your own game and scores and not realizing how relatively easy the courses they play can be. Your greens are probably faster, with more tucked pins, to boot.

You seem to be under-estimating how much lower you can shoot by having 500-600 yards lopped off a course. That's three clubs less (5-iron to 8-iron, 7-iron to pitching wedge) on every hole.

Never mind, too, that the guy will be 20 yards longer than most of the women off the tee, and each club he hits 20 yards farther, too. Driver-7I holes for women will be driver, SW holes for the guy. Or he can hit 3W off the tee, and still have a 9I to the green.

A Zero HC isn't even good enough to be competitive on the Big Break golf show!! High HC golfers are misguided in their perceptions of what it means to be a zero HC.

What do either of those have to do with the topic?

- The Big Break (men's edition) is full of guys who are +2 to +4 (when they're good, anyway).

- I'm not a higher handicapper. I'm disagreeing with you.

All that said, you don't seem to know what you're saying: you agreed with me a few posts ago, and now are back to disagreeing.

[acerimusdux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinsk

@acerimusdux

Perhaps you missed some previous posts. I'm not hung up on distance. For all those who are convinced that female college golfers, LPGA..are the most amazing athletes on the planet that's fine. They can easily beat any non-pro male hands down. Fine that's wonderful, I'm not going to argue with that.

What I'm saying, asking is with the LPGA consisting of such pristine talent and only a small margin of pure distance exists between them and then men....then why is EVERY aspect of the golf course altered for the women?

Someone made the statement [ I don't want to watch the women struggle to shoot 80...Id rather watch them compete on a fair level] this was a response to my suggesting they move the tees up 20yds but otherwise keep EVERY thing else the same as they do for the men.
Being that the entire short game is not limited by upper body strength why are alterations made? Backside they are women?
If that's the case....then this is why I tend to think a scratch male golfer with tournament experience could fair well on the LPGA.
There are PGA players who are +4....it seems extreme that a zero HC would be humiliated on the LPGA but a +4 can compete on the PGA.

Hell I don't know. I just would like to see the women play Augusta with the tees up 15-20% but no other changes. It's too easy for them. I've watched PGA guys shoot in the 80's. Even big names. I can't remember the last time I saw a big name blow up on the LPGA. I'm sure many here will say it's because they're that much better. I think it's because they have made the tracks too easy for them. With the unnecessarily short holes and the soft greens...they can play awful and still shoot low 70's.

Well, I don't think it's a small margin, I think the top men are getting significantly more clubhead speed, and thus there's a pretty big difference in both distance and spin. Perhaps you didn't realize how much spin is a product of clubhead speed?

And I don't think they are necessarily making many alterations for the women. I think when they both played Pinehurst #2 this year, it was almost the same condidtions, but closer tees. Read this :

Quote:

There’s more to this than the women playing the same course. The USGA is determined to try to set up Pinehurst No. 2 so the men and women will be playing it in relatively the same conditions.

Quote:

“To the extent possible, we want these two weeks to play exactly the same, given the slightly differing ability of the men versus the women,” Davis said. “So you're going see the setup of the greens with the same speed in week one as week two. They're going to be roughly 11½ to 12 on the Stimpmeter. You're going to see us use roughly the same hole locations. You can't use the exact hole locations, for obvious reasons.”

While the aim is to set up the same green speeds, the USGA will be looking to soften the greens slightly for the women. That’s one of the reasons the women are following the men, Davis said. It’s easier to soften greens in a week’s time for the women than it would be to firm them up in a week’s time for the men, he said.

Why soften the greens for the women?

“The idea there is that if the men are hitting a wedge in, and it's kind of a bounce, stop, that’s what we’ll want for the women,” Davis said. “If the women are hitting a 6‑iron in and it's a bounce, bounce, stop. That's what we want for the men.”

If both men and women are hitting 8-iron into the green for example, the men may be hitting it from 160 yards out, and the women form 135 yards. And the shot from the man will just naturally be higher and have more spin, that's just the basic phyics of it. It's just not possible for the woman to put the same spin on her 135 yard 8-iron without having the same club speed.

Certainly some of the LPGA events have easier courses than Pinehurst, but for the big events for the most part, I think they play some pretty challenging setups.

[iacas]

And I don't think they are necessarily making many alterations for the women. I think when they both played Pinehurst #2 this year, it was almost the same condidtions, but closer tees. Read this:

The greens were dramatically slower and softer for the women.

Certainly some of the LPGA events have easier courses than Pinehurst, but for the big events for the most part, I think they play some pretty challenging setups.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/32498/trackman-data-pga-tour-vs-lpga/72#post_890442

8-iron: Men hit it 20 feet higher, 30 yards farther, and had 500 RPM more spin.

Most of their courses top out at about 72.x on the course rating system. They have to - distance is a HUGE component of course ratings.

[Vinsk]

There’s more to this than the women playing the same course. The USGA is determined to try to set up Pinehurst No. 2 so the men and women will be playing it in relatively the same conditions. That usually isn't the case. Hell they even SHOWED the maintenance crew soaking the greens for the U.S. Open last year. They had mowers out there for cryin out loud! The men were all talking how difficult the greens were and how you couldn't afford any errors......what did Staci Lewis have to say? "It was fun....the course played pretty easy out there" Once again....no reason to dumb up these courses for them if they're that amazing. I'm for a conclusion as Erik, I believe made the best assessment so far.

[Vinsk]

@BuckeyeNut You're actually wrong. Chad is a zero handicap and he's eliminated 4 in a row on elimination challenges as well as beating Annika Sorenstem on a stableford points. But I guess you don't consider that as being able to compete.

[BuckeyeNut]

LOL.... Corporal Clutch is the man!!

[BuckeyeNut]

All that said, you don't seem to know what you're saying: you agreed with me a few posts ago, and now are back to disagreeing.

I agreed to your comment that a scratch golfer doesn't average 75...or whatever the number was, because his stroke average will be higher

We disagree on a lot...............Look at Pinehurst for example for the womens and mens US open.

For 1 thing, the women can really putt!!   You are selling them short.  Their overall short games are light-years beyond that of a scratch golfer.  If a scratch golfer played a 72 hole event on the LPGA, his average 72 hole score (if there was no cut) would be +10 or more.    On his very best week of the year, he might be able to flirt with level par during a 72 hole tourney.   Any person that thinks a scratch player will suddenly start stringing sub-par rounds by moving up to 6500yds needs to put down the crack pipe.    what is even more shocking, is you are a teaching pro, right?   Your argument to me reeks of a 10-15hc golfer, but I know you are not so this leaves me scratching my head.

[iacas]

I agreed to your comment that a scratch golfer doesn't average 75...or whatever the number was, because his stroke average will be higher

They'll be lower on a 71-rated course.

We disagree on a lot...............Look at Pinehurst for example for the womens and mens US open.

What about it?

For 1 thing, the women can really putt!!   You are selling them short.

No I'm not. They really don't putt very well. Their short games aren't very good, either. I'm nowhere near the only person who thinks this. They've done tests and studies on why women are such bad putters. Why they have such poor short games. Part of it is that they don't grow up playing putting contests for hours at a time - golf is more social to them - and part of it (short game) is because women don't tend to use speed properly in the short game. They have fewer shots available to them.

Their overall short games are light-years beyond that of a scratch golfer.

I've worked with many good female players on their short games. They're not great.

I don't know what kind of scratch golfers you've played with - or if you just got by because the course you played suited you or something - but I've worked with LPGA players, scratch golfers (+1 to 1), better than scratch, etc. I feel I have a reasonable grasp of the relative skill levels.

Plus, putting and the short game don't matter all that much. A guy has a huge advantage in how far he hits the ball, both off the tee and then with each iron.

what is even more shocking, is you are a teaching pro, right?   Your argument to me reeks of a 10-15hc golfer, but I know you are not so this leaves me scratching my head.

I am. First thing you've said with which I agree. :)

[Vinsk]

I think you are underestimating how much better an LPGA player is than a female scratch golfer. If the LPGA ever played that Kiawah Island Ocean Course, they wouldn't be playing those 6200 yard tees, they'd be playing at the very least the 6475 tees (Mens CR 72.0).  You have to figure they are frequently playing courses which would have a CR for women of 77-78 or more. If they are playing courses with an average CR for men of 71-72, what do you think our scratch male is going to have as a scoring average on those courses? If he averages 72.5, that ranks him 101 in 2014 in scoring average on the LPGA tour.

And what was James Hahn ranked when he won last week?

[Vinsk]

@buckeyenut Putting. There is no perfect putting stat. Putts per round is affected by the number of missed greens and scrambling, so it is a meaningless measure. The PGA Tour’s relatively new Strokes Gained Putting stat is esoteric, and anyway, the LPGA doesn’t use it. All we can compare is putts per green hit in regulation, which both tours keep. Stacy Lewis is first in the LPGA stats at 1.743 putts per GIR. She would rank 20th on the PGA Tour stats. She is followed by Inbee Park and Michelle Wie, who would rank 47th and 65th on the PGA Tour list, respectively. You know, it does seem like you can watch an LPGA telecast for quite a while before you see a ten-footer go in. The winner: Men. Now this is PGA vs LPGA.....but sorry BuckeyeNut....just facts.

[BuckeyeNut]

I agree the PGA players are much better in all respects, but we are comparing a scratch golfer AM hack to LPGA tour players.   Stats are such a fine line that a very small margin separates the #1 putter on the PGA from the #20putter.       On the other hand, I suggest there is a much bigger difference between the #20 putter on PGA and or a Stacy Lewis....and an amateur hack weekend golfer that carries a 0 HC.   It's much more than just a GIR putting number.  It's putts holed inside of 5,10, 15 feet too to save pars.

Anyway...I don't want to cause a pissing match.   I am just speaking out as a guy that has played scratch golf before........ and I don't believe a golfer of this caliber can make a living on the LPGA.    end of rant........   They wouldn't just fail to maintain their card, but they'd get washed out by epic proportions.

It's true they don't get to play many famous courses, but they do play some nice tracks.

[Vinsk]

Fair enough, but I'm just not sure why you refer to a zero, scratch golfer as a "hack".  You have presented your opinion with well, nothing but an opinion. Erik (Iacas) and I have presented some statistics as well as Iacas' experience as a teaching pro. It's not a pissing match. I think it's a hell of a good debate (thanks Iacas) and fun to discuss.

My comments are not intended to sound sexist. My, annoyance if you will, is that I thought this was just a great and well timed question for me as I have been watching a ton of LPGA golf on the Golf Channel and I just don't see the awesomeness I assumed was there. Not because I don't think the girls are damn good golfers, but because the tracks they're playing don't seem that challenging for them.

I know "knowing someone who...." is anecdotal and not scientific data, but I used to play with a guy in Washington who I'd play Wine Valley Golf Course with. From the tips this course plays 7600 yds. The greens were huge, sloping and paper thin fast. He was scratch. Gold 76.1/134 was the slope rating (gold tees the tips). Amazing ball striker. Awesome putter. He'd played for years, never in college, never even attempted a career in golf (he's a rheumatologist). He'd shoot 70, 69, (par 72). My last round with him, he shot 65. Just as calm as can be, really fun to watch for me.

Now, I certainly could be off, but for me I just find it hard to believe that this guy would get on a course with very possibly softer greens, but certainly 500-1000yds SHORTER and get humiliated. I don't think I'm under estimating the pro women here. I know they're good. But with distance being a huge factor (which I'm not sure you realize) I can't see this guy getting wiped out as you put it.

This is the score card from Wine Valley. If you look at the yardage, I don't believe that Inbee Park could come on this course and shoot below 65 regularly from the gold tees. I just don't.

[MSchott]

There’s more to this than the women playing the same course. The USGA is determined to try to set up Pinehurst No. 2 so the men and women will be playing it in relatively the same conditions.

That usually isn't the case. Hell they even SHOWED the maintenance crew soaking the greens for the U.S. Open last year. They had mowers out there for cryin out loud!

The men were all talking how difficult the greens were and how you couldn't afford any errors......what did Staci Lewis have to say? "It was fun....the course played pretty easy out there"

Once again....no reason to dumb up these courses for them if they're that amazing.

I'm for a conclusion as Erik, I believe made the best assessment so far.

I believe the reason the greens were softer for the women is that they almost lost them during the Men's US Open. They were too hard and with the domed greens, the landing areas were tiny. Can you imagine what that would have done to the women who spin the ball much less? So yes they changed them for the women but they were too hard for the men.

[MSchott]

Fair enough, but I'm just not sure why you refer to a zero, scratch golfer as a "hack".  You have presented your opinion with well, nothing but an opinion. Erik (Iacas) and I have presented some statistics as well as Iacas' experience as a teaching pro. It's not a pissing match. I think it's a hell of a good debate (thanks Iacas) and fun to discuss.

My comments are not intended to sound sexist. My, annoyance if you will, is that I thought this was just a great and well timed question for me as I have been watching a ton of LPGA golf on the Golf Channel and I just don't see the awesomeness I assumed was there. Not because I don't think the girls are damn good golfers, but because the tracks they're playing don't seem that challenging for them.

I know "knowing someone who...." is anecdotal and not scientific data, but I used to play with a guy in Washington who I'd play Wine Valley Golf Course with. From the tips this course plays 7600 yds. The greens were huge, sloping and paper thin fast. He was scratch. Gold 76.1/134 was the slope rating (gold tees the tips). Amazing ball striker. Awesome putter. He'd played for years, never in college, never even attempted a career in golf (he's a rheumatologist). He'd shoot 70, 69, (par 72). My last round with him, he shot 65. Just as calm as can be, really fun to watch for me.

Now, I certainly could be off, but for me I just find it hard to believe that this guy would get on a course with very possibly softer greens, but certainly 500-1000yds SHORTER and get humiliated. I don't think I'm under estimating the pro women here. I know they're good. But with distance being a huge factor (which I'm not sure you realize) I can't see this guy getting wiped out as you put it.

This is the score card from Wine Valley. If you look at the yardage, I don't believe that Inbee Park could come on this course and shoot below 65 regularly from the gold tees. I just don't.

Interesting scenario.First, I doubt that the greens on this course are as fast as those played by the LPGA tour. Few public or resort courses do. Second, for a 7600 yard course, a 134 slope is not high at all. The 6400 yard course I play has a 131 slope. But if your buddy could handle the pressure of playing against a world class pro and dealing with galleries, I think he'd be competitive.

By the way I looked at Wine Valley's website. That is a lovely course. I love the bunkering.

[DrvFrShow]

Our local 7083 yd public course has a slope of 136 from the tips. 123 from 6600. My neighbor played the course from the tips, and he said it's brutal: two 200 yd par 3s. 6270 (white) for women is rated 76/129; even the reds are 73/121.